Evolution vs Creationism

[snex]

the one thing you cant do is stop children with idiot parents from asking creationism questions... biology teachers do need to be taught about it in order to deal with it if a kid asks.

most of the "normal" biology teachers ive talked to know their biology of that level really well, but would be completely stumped if you pointed them to an answers in genesis article talking about digit assignment in birds vs dinosaurs.

 

[Kur]

the one thing you cant do is stop children with idiot parents from asking creationism questions... biology teachers do need to be taught about it in order to deal with it if a kid asks.

most of the "normal" biology teachers ive talked to know their biology of that level really well, but would be completely stumped if you pointed them to an answers in genesis article talking about digit assignment in birds vs dinosaurs.

Public school teachers are notorious for knowing only what is in their teacher hand book. In high school I had a biology teacher tell me that Evolution explains how the tapir evolved into the elephant (I guess because they both have long noses?) and that in fact ants are above elephants and lions on the food chain. I asked her how that could be and her answer was "because ants eat lions and elephants when they die."

Honestly I have learned far more about evolution and biology in general by teaching myself over the internet than I ever could have learned in high school.

and the simple solution is that at the start of the class the teacher should say "This is a biology class where we will be studying the SCIENCE of evolution. There will be no talk of the bible, creation, or intelligent design as none of those things is a science."

 

[RDK]

The problem is that all church-going, Bible-believing Creationists get their ridiculous theories and information from the same sources (Answers in Genesis being a big one), so naturally the same Creationist garbage is heard time and time again. If they actually took time to research the other side (a.k.a., TRUTH), then maybe they'd have a better understanding of evolution and such instead of believing the watered-down accusations on evolution taught to them in Parochial school.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're not willing to relinquish 1 hour of science class to "deal" with creationism?

Not at all, just like I'm not willing to relinquish one hour of science class to deal with French verb conjugations, or one hour of French class to deal with biochem.

It's just not within the purview of the sibject, and thus, should not be taught in the class.

Come on, man. That's not really much to ask for. It's enough for the kids to be informed of the notion yet not "brainwashed", because I know that's what people are afraid of. I see it as entirely reasonable to quickly dabble in it for a single period, no more. Comparing religions isn't a mandatory class. Science is. It's probably the only place it would fit.

It's not even about brainwashing, it's maintaining a consistent subject matter.

It doesn't matter HOW VALID the topic might be, if it is not obtained through the scientific method, it is unreasonable to study in science class. From there, you get into specific science class, you would not be seeing quantum mechanics in a geology class, it's just not within the subject.

Consistency in subject matter is essential to teaching a subject, allowing creation into science classes destroys that consistency.

And yeah, a lot of Catholic schools don't teach evolution. Maybe you got lucky or something, but I thought that was the case.

I was hinting at a bit more then that... Every "Catholic school" in NY does teach evolution. Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church. That being the case, I find it highly unlikely that this attitude is the common attitude.

Prove it, it's far more likely that any expirience you have is the exception rather then the rule.

.......so?

So... isn't science class supposed to teach.... science?

 

[snex]

Public school teachers are notorious for knowing only what is in their teacher hand book. In high school I had a biology teacher tell me that Evolution explains how the tapir evolved into the elephant (I guess because they both have long noses?) and that in fact ants are above elephants and lions on the food chain. I asked her how that could be and her answer was "because ants eat lions and elephants when they die."

Honestly I have learned far more about evolution and biology in general by teaching myself over the internet than I ever could have learned in high school.

and the simple solution is that at the start of the class the teacher should say "This is a biology class where we will be studying the SCIENCE of evolution. There will be no talk of the bible, creation, or intelligent design as none of those things is a science."

you can thank your government for this. public school teachers get paid jack ****, so most of the people with actual intelligence in their respective fields are either doing academic research or working for private industry. take a look at the budget sometime, and compare how much education gets compared to defense, or even freaking corn farmers.

 

[manhunter098]

Education gets plenty of money meet its needs. The real problem is that its poorly run, and because of that money that could be better spent raising teacher salaries, is spent on things like new football stadiums for schools, getting new overpriced computers, and filling the wallets of the upper parts of the school districts administration.


I guess I was lucky when it came to my biology class, since my biology teacher was FAR more than qualified considering he was almost a doctor (decided to stop during his residency).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Education gets plenty of money meet its needs. The real problem is that its poorly run, and because of that money that could be better spent raising teacher salaries, is spent on things like new football stadiums for schools, getting new overpriced computers, and filling the wallets of the upper parts of the school districts administration.

Erm, computers and sports are BAD things for schools to spend money on???

Physical fitness is extremely important as well, and sports tend to bring in income to the schools (not necessarily in excess of what they cost, but it certainly does defray a portion of what they spend, though it often does more then pay for itself).

Computers? Do we even need to discuss how fundamental computers are to modern education? If they're not up to date, they lose a great deal of educational value.


Neither of those things are the real problem...

 

[manhunter098]

Im talking about overpriced computers. As far as my experience with the computers my school ended up getting, they were trash for the roughly $800 each that they cost. There is a lot of money wasted on things that could be purchased cheaper. Thats what I meant with my computer example.

But I fear we are getting a bit off topic.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Erm, computers and sports are BAD things for schools to spend money on???

Physical fitness is extremely important as well, and sports tend to bring in income to the schools (not necessarily in excess of what they cost, but it certainly does defray a portion of what they spend, though it often does more then pay for itself).

Computers? Do we even need to discuss how fundamental computers are to modern education? If they're not up to date, they lose a great deal of educational value.


Neither of those things are the real problem...

Physical fitness is important, but not the most important, which is where a lot of schools make a mistake. My high school didn't get a formal auditorium for Fine Arts performances until this year (the school's been open since 2000, and I graduated in Spring '06); my Senior year, we got a second gymnasium... so that when we had basketball games, the away team had a full gym to practice in before the game. Priorities here in Texas are seriously f**ked up.

 

[victra♥]

The topic is about Evolution and Creationism. Let's try to keep it that way.

Although, I can see this school budget debate in it's own separate thread. If you want to continue with it, I suggest you do that instead. lol guys, i'm CK.

Anyways, i'd really to hear what young earth creationists have to say about all this.

 

[Unusual_Rex]

I just want to start out and say that I'm a Christian.

I obviously don't know everything but I just want to say a few things.

As a Christian, there are loads of people when have no idea what there talking about and then a few who do. I try to stay open "minded" as much as possible.

Although this doesn't have to do much with the debate, why do people care about this argument? Neither point can be proven 100%.

If your an evolutionist, whats in it for you? IF you're wrong you've gained nothing, if your right, then, well you're right, and still gained nothing.

If your a Christian, and you're wrong, what have you gained, nothing. If you're right, what have you gained? Eternal life.

Although this doesn't prove one or the other, it may help evolutionists understand why Christians believe what they do. I'll leave more of the technical stuff to people who study this, or know what there talking about.

 

[RDK]

I just want to start out and say that I'm a Christian.

I obviously don't know everything but I just want to say a few things.

As a Christian, there are loads of people when have no idea what there talking about and then a few who do. I try to stay open "minded" as much as possible.

Although this doesn't have to do much with the debate, why do people care about this argument? Neither point can be proven 100%.

If your an evolutionist, whats in it for you? IF you're wrong you've gained nothing, if your right, then, well you're right, and still gained nothing.

If your a Christian, and you're wrong, what have you gained, nothing. If you're right, what have you gained? Eternal life.

Although this doesn't prove one or the other, it may help evolutionists understand why Christians believe what they do. I'll leave more of the technical stuff to people who study this, or know what there talking about.

If I'm an evolutionist and I'm right, I've gained truth. Which it is; evolution can be observed today. To say "neither side can be proved 100%" is a ridiculous statement, as evolution is a scientific fact.

 

[adumbrodeus]

If I'm an evolutionist and I'm right, I've gained truth. Which it is; evolution can be observed today. To say "neither side can be proved 100%" is a ridiculous statement, as evolution is a scientific fact.

Erm, actually no. Science can't give you Truth. That's the nature of inductive reasoning, it's not rigorous, which is why science accepts empirical falsification, constantly testing and rejecting the null hypothesis (which is whatever is held as true at the time, for example, "all swans are white").

You see, a general statement cannot be proven by any number of observations less then infinite, because you can never be sure that you didn't miss an observation that contradicts your findings, or even a greater number of cases that contradict your findings then you observed.

However, a general statement can be DISPROVEN by a single observation (for instance, "all swans are white", is disproven by the observation of a black swan). On that note there have been observations which have disproven creationism.

 

[RDK]

Erm, actually no. Science can't give you Truth. That's the nature of inductive reasoning, it's not rigorous, which is why science accepts empirical falsification, constantly testing and rejecting the null hypothesis (which is whatever is held as true at the time, for example, "all swans are white").

You see, a general statement cannot be proven by any number of observations less then infinite, because you can never be sure that you didn't miss an observation that contradicts your findings, or even a greater number of cases that contradict your findings then you observed.

However, a general statement can be DISPROVEN by a single observation (for instance, "all swans are white", is disproven by the observation of a black swan). On that note there have been observations which have disproven creationism.

Yes, I realize this, but obviously we're accepting casuality in this instance. We've already gone down this road in the How Can Anyone Believe in God Thread (a.k.a. Tangent City).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes, I realize this, but obviously we're accepting casuality in this instance. We've already gone down this road in the How Can Anyone Believe in God Thread (a.k.a. Tangent City).

This has nothing to do with causality.

The fact remains that induction is fundamentally flawed in both theory and practice. If you observe something, observing it only tells you that it holds for that case (and that the negative cannot hold for every case). Again, the example of the black swan is wonderfully illustrative of this fact, everyone "knew" all swans were white, until a black swan was found.


Thus, we have have the problem of induction, something modern science deftly sidestepped by going for infinite tests (the only way to make induction rigorous). In practice, this means that nothing is ever proven 100%, there's always a chance a new observation will disprove something that you've believed for your entire life. It happened with the movement of tectonic plates (in HS they believed it was convection currents that caused it, so I was taught that, a few years they discovered it was gravity, so in geology class I was taught that), and it can happen with anything else.



Science cannot prove that historical evolution is what happened as it stands, in fact it's constantly being disproven, replaced with explanations that better fit new evidence. However it can prove that the process of evolution occurs (since it has been observed).



While this issue may be covered in philosophy, it's fundamentally a practical one, induction is bad, but it's all we have to base science upon.

 

[RDK]

This has nothing to do with causality.

The fact remains that induction is fundamentally flawed in both theory and practice. If you observe something, observing it only tells you that it holds for that case (and that the negative cannot hold for every case). Again, the example of the black swan is wonderfully illustrative of this fact, everyone "knew" all swans were white, until a black swan was found.


Thus, we have have the problem of induction, something modern science deftly sidestepped by going for infinite tests (the only way to make induction rigorous). In practice, this means that nothing is ever proven 100%, there's always a chance a new observation will disprove something that you've believed for your entire life. It happened with the movement of tectonic plates (in HS they believed it was convection currents that caused it, so I was taught that, a few years they discovered it was gravity, so in geology class I was taught that), and it can happen with anything else.



Science cannot prove that historical evolution is what happened as it stands, in fact it's constantly being disproven, replaced with explanations that better fit new evidence. However it can prove that the process of evolution occurs (since it has been observed).



While this issue may be covered in philosophy, it's fundamentally a practical one, induction is bad, but it's all we have to base science upon.

Evolution exists, and it's a biological system just like photosynethesis, or the food chain--it's our understanding of evolution that is / may be flawed.

The fact that induction is flawed in theory and practice is still moot when you're presented with the alternatives. Stating that scientific induction fails by its own standards is a ridiculous statement to make, seeing as how it's time-tested and, although it's only as strong as the number of times you're able to put something through the gauntlet of scientific study, induction is the only possible routine for making educated guesses based on mulitple observations of the world around us.

Also, induction isn't inherently bad; it just suffers from the fact that it assumes its own reliability.

BTW, you're starting to sound like Yossarian. I'd be careful.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Evolution exists, and it's a biological system just like photosynethesis, or the food chain--it's our understanding of evolution that is / may be flawed.

Mentioned that (that we know that evolution has occured due to observation so it cannot be disproven), but we're obviously talking about historical evolution, not evolution as it currently occurs, otherwise it wouldn't be paired up against creationalism.

The fact that induction is flawed in theory and practice is still moot when you're presented with the alternatives. Stating that scientific induction fails by its own standards is a ridiculous statement to make, seeing as how it's time-tested and, although it's only as strong as the number of times you're able to put something through the gauntlet of scientific study, induction is the only possible routine for making educated guesses based on mulitple observations of the world around us.

Notice I never said that science's methodology was wrong. I was pointing out that your statement about science's conclusions is incorrect, nothing is 100%.

I am a staunch proponent of empirical falsification, everything I said here leads to this conclusion, that you cannot prove that something occurs in all cases, just like you cannot prove that something never occurs. But you can disprove that something never occurs, and disprove something occurring in all cases.

My paragraph above, is the foundation of science, as well as the only valid use of induction.


Sorry, but it's you, by saying science can prove things 100%, that is disagreeing with the scientific method. This time, I do think you misunderstood me.

Also, induction isn't inherently bad; it just suffers from the fact that it assumes its own reliability.

I never said it was bad, just that you can't prove certain things from it, a conclusion science long ago accepted.

BTW, you're starting to sound like Yossarian. I'd be careful.

It's an interesting part from time to time, but here, it's totally a pragmatic issue. The scientific method only works because of the problem of induction. Ignoring it doesn't help anybody.

 

[GhostAnime]

despite all that, evolution is currently the best theory we have.

 

[Unusual_Rex]

Depends on what you mean by evolution.

 

[RDK]

Depends on what you mean by evolution.

WTF?

Oh, and Adumbrodeus, I totally agree with what you're saying about science not being able to prove something 100% due to outlying possibilities / reactions that have not been studied (I.E., the black swan analogy). When I said "100% true" I was obviously allowing for a certain margin of exaggeration.

 

[snex]

I just want to start out and say that I'm a Christian.

I obviously don't know everything but I just want to say a few things.

As a Christian, there are loads of people when have no idea what there talking about and then a few who do. I try to stay open "minded" as much as possible.

Although this doesn't have to do much with the debate, why do people care about this argument? Neither point can be proven 100%.

If your an evolutionist, whats in it for you? IF you're wrong you've gained nothing, if your right, then, well you're right, and still gained nothing.

If your a Christian, and you're wrong, what have you gained, nothing. If you're right, what have you gained? Eternal life.

Although this doesn't prove one or the other, it may help evolutionists understand why Christians believe what they do. I'll leave more of the technical stuff to people who study this, or know what there talking about.

to see how mind-numbingly stupid this argument is, imagine its not evolution you are talking about, but rather gravity. if the bible asserted that gravity didnt exist, would you still make the same argument? no, youd realize how stupid it is. the stupidity of the argument doesnt change when you switch to evolution. evolution and gravity are derived using the same exact method - science. the bible is just a book.

 

[Unusual_Rex]

to see how mind-numbingly stupid this argument is, imagine its not evolution you are talking about, but rather gravity. if the bible asserted that gravity didnt exist, would you still make the same argument? no, youd realize how stupid it is. the stupidity of the argument doesnt change when you switch to evolution. evolution and gravity are derived using the same exact method - science. the bible is just a book.

I'm not making an argument, I was just explaining that there are no benefits in believing in evolution.

The Bible doesn't say gravity doesn't exist, and never will so why try to apply that logic to something completely un-related?

You can apply any sort or logic to something and make it sound stupid.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh man.

Go easy on him, Snex....

 

[Unusual_Rex]

I really don't see the point in debating this. From what I can see is no one will change their mind.

I'll let some one who has more time on their hands to continue.

 

[Crimson King]

Here's where you are wrong:

If there is nothing when you die, you won't know. If there is, it won't affect you because we have no conscious way of interpreting an afterlife. Heaven would have to appeal purely to the soul, which in and of itself cannot be shown, and to appeal to something completely invisible would mean using senses we do not have.

Also, if you are wrong, you wasted your life following a book blindly to give you false hope - I consider that pretty awful.

Finally, you aren't winning any favors here. Post like you are actually debating, or I'll remove you.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not making an argument, I was just explaining that there are no benefits in believing in evolution.

The Bible doesn't say gravity doesn't exist, and never will so why try to apply that logic to something completely un-related?

You can apply any sort or logic to something and make it sound stupid.

There are no benefits to believing in evolution?! I'm sorry, but that's incredibly short-sighted and, frankly, stupid. Of course there are benefits! How about an increased understanding of biology and genetics? I apply knowledge of evolution and natural selection to nearly every aspect of my daily life; it's part of the reason I enjoy being a naturalist, because it is so logical in its workings.

What's the benefit to creationism? You believe in something that can't be tested or proven, something that has no logical basis. That sounds like a great way to live: blind, illogical faith.

 

[snex]

I'm not making an argument, I was just explaining that there are no benefits in believing in evolution.

The Bible doesn't say gravity doesn't exist, and never will so why try to apply that logic to something completely un-related?

You can apply any sort or logic to something and make it sound stupid.

it doesnt matter if the bible doesnt actually say that. dont be ********. the point i made was that the form of your argument is INVALID. it doesnt matter WHAT you substitute in, your argument is WRONG.

and if you think there are no benefits in believing in evolution, stop buying food immediately. virtually ALL of the food you buy is genetically enhanced, artificially selected for, and/or produced using knowledge of evolution. if we had no understanding of evolution, our use of antibiotics in food products would lead to massive crop failures due to epidemics.

soviet russia claimed that evolution was "bourgeois science" and ignored it - and thousands starved to death.

 

[Jack Kieser]

it doesnt matter if the bible doesnt actually say that. dont be ********. the point i made was that the form of your argument is INVALID. it doesnt matter WHAT you substitute in, your argument is WRONG.

and if you think there are no benefits in believing in evolution, stop buying food immediately. virtually ALL of the food you buy is genetically enhanced, artificially selected for, and/or produced using knowledge of evolution. if we had no understanding of evolution, our use of antibiotics in food products would lead to massive crop failures due to epidemics.

soviet russia claimed that evolution was "bourgeois science" and ignored it - and thousands starved to death.

In Soviet Russia, nature selects you.

OHWAI-

 

[RDK]

In Soviet Russia, nature selects you.

OHWAI-

I demand a cookie for understanding this joke.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I demand a cookie for understanding this joke.

RDK_Cookie_Count++;

 

[Crimson King]

Signature deleted.

Read other threads before posting. We have rules.

 

[Deleted member]

Signature delorted.

Read other threads before posting. We have rules.

Fixed that for you.

No charge, of course.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Was there a problem with our signatures? As far as I know, mine was in all the guidelines (497x125, 20kb). Are we supposed to disable them in here or something?

 

[Crimson King]

Yes. There is a topic on it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I'm pretty sure I edited all of my posts in here to take off the signatures.

 

[The Executive]

Cookie request.

This topic has crashed.

 

[Uncle_Donkey]

If this life has taught me one thing, it's that there is something to everything. What I mean by that is, when there are two conflicting sides to one story, and one group of people say it's this and another group say no it's that, in reality it's always a little of both sides.

Before I continue, let me say that I attend church, and I believe Jesus died for my sins. I'm not yet a true Christian, but that's a different story.

About evolution vs. creationism, I think that if you had stood to the side and watched it all unfold, it would have looked to your eyes like it happened very much the same as the way the scientists say it all happened--the big bang, evolution, the whole nine yards. What you wouldn't have seen though, is God orchestrating it all. The Bible says that God spent six days creating the universe and rested on the seventh. The Bible also says that to God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Creationism therefore places no time restraint on the forming of the universe.

Now about the origin of mankind, that's a very touchy subject. My opinions about evolution and creationism would suggest that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but if I took that stance, then many of my friends and family here in Alabama would want me thrown in the looney bin (a bit of an exaggeration). I therefore choose not to form an opinion specifically about the origin of mankind. I will say this though. I really think that most people so strongly oppose the notion that humans and apes share a common ancestor because they have too much pride to consider the possibility that their origin was anything less spectacular than being literally raised from the dust by God.

 

[cF=)]

Creationism therefore places no time restraint on the forming of the universe.

Let's just make something clear, what YOU believe is absolutely not creationism in any form or shape. It's only the belief that god is over everything man discovered through science. Creationism, on the other hand, will speculate that the Earth is 6000 years old, humans lived with dinosaurs, adam and eve were the gene pool of humanity, and much more things that don't make sense to today's critical and logical observations. Even if "god" is part of your universal scheme, you don't have to use the word creationism to define your thoughts.

 

[EC_Joey]

The Bible says that God spent six days creating the universe and rested on the seventh. The Bible also says that to God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Creationism therefore places no time restraint on the forming of the universe.

Seven thousand years is nowhere near how long it took the first life forms on Earth to appear after the Big Bang.

 

[BFDD]

Creationism must be right because its in the bible and god wrote the bible and he is always right because the bible says so.

But on a serious note, why is it that people insist that creationism is true and then laugh at other religions view of the origin of life. Native Americans, I believe, thought the earth was formed on the back of a giant turtle. Ancient Greeks thought that everything originated from the sky and the earth mating. Should we allow all ideas about the origin of life into science class? If we let the Christians teach their myth we should let all other religions teach theirs.

It is also important to keep in mind the bible was written by humans claiming to hear the voice of god. Maybe some did, I can't prove they didn't, but admitting creationism is wrong does not mean god or the teachings of Christianity is wrong. It only means that the person that wrote that section was incorrect and its possible he added it to answer a question that science had not yet found the answer to. But now science does have the answer and its time to move on.